George Will: Wisdom isn’t exactly Newt Gingrich’s strong suit

posted at 1:25 pm on December 2, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Remember when conservative columnist George Will called Mitt Romney a “recidivist reviser of his principles”? As it happens, the veteran pundit has nothing nicer to say about Newt Gingrich, whose astounding sudden popularity in the polls recently prompted the candidate himself to say he’ll be the 2012 GOP nominee.

On “The Laura Ingraham Show” today, Will took Gingrich to task for a lack of wisdom — and prophesied a bleak future for the conservative movement if either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich happens to become the GOP nominee (or, worse, according to Will, actually president!). The Daily Caller reports:

“Mr. Gingrich said it’s not enough that he is the smartest guy in the room, he also has to be wise,” Will said. “Now you can associate many things with Mr. Gingrich, but wisdom isn’t one of them. Surely the Republican nominating electorate should understand the fact that people have patterns. Don’t expect the patterns to go away. Expect the patterns to manifest themselves again. If Newt Gingrich has any pattern at all, and he does – it is a pattern of getting himself into trouble because he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.”

Will said that he thought Gingrich actually believed it when he said he was going to be the Republican nominee, particularly because the stage in Gingrich’s mind “is lit by the fires of crisis and grandeur.”

“Ask yourself this: Suppose Gingrich or Romney become president and gets re-elected – suppose you had eight years of this,” Will said. “What would the conservative movement be? How would it understand itself after eight years? I think what would have gone away, perhaps forever, is the sense of limited government, the 10th Amendment, Madisonian government of limited, delegated and enumerated powers – the sense conservatism is indeed tied to limitations on federal authority and the police power wielded by Congress – that would all be gone. It’s hard to know what would be left.”

See, these comments from one of the columnists who converted my theretofore Democratic mom to conservatism scare me — just as Allahpundit’s recent indictments of Gingrich make me nervous, too. At times like this, I remember just how few election cycles I’ve personally witnessed. I was born at the tail end of Reagan’s presidency and was a little kid when Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House. The point is, I can study his past patterns — but I didn’t personally observe them. I’m still young enough and naive enough to believe that people’s patterns can and do change — and to think the image Gingrich portrays today is a sincere one. But I also tend to think Romney’s present conservative positions are the product of his own personal growth, rather than the product of his deep-seated and evident desire to be elected to the presidency.

Which is wiser: To believe the best of our candidates and be disappointed or to believe the worst of them and be pleasantly surprised?

In the meantime, if conservatives are so disenchanted with Romney and Gingrich, why aren’t Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann (especially Michele Bachmann!) still in the mix of contenders? Don’t tell me Gingrich is more conservative than Perry, the Texas governor’s crony capitalistic tendencies and squishy immigration positions aside. Gingrich all but lobbied for Freddie Mac. And Gingrich has echoed the very immigration positions that presumably disqualified Perry from conservative consideration. (Then again, if Perry’s really no more conservative than Gingrich, why would nominate a nervous speaker over a confident one?) As for Bachmann, has anyone anywhere ever been able to cast genuine doubt on her conservative bona fides?

At this point, mightn’t it be better to run a conservative with virtually no pretense at electability for the sake of demonstrating genuine commitment to conservative principles? If, as Will says, the election of a Republican sellout in 2012 would mean the death of conservatism, wouldn’t it be better to let the opposition to Obama continue to grow by a second term, until the American people are so thoroughly tired of him that a conservative could easily trounce any Democratic candidate in 2016? And if, as so many have said, Obama is so thoroughly underwater right now that Republicans ought to be able to beat him by nominating a skunk, we really have no excuse for not nominating a conservative.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Mitt Romney stated his position. In 2007. But hey, maybe we can just start telling people to ignore what he said before 2008.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Hey Chippiechawa…read what i posted here:
g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM

This is what Romney was explaining but you cannot do that in the environment that he was in with Russert and that is why generally all these talking heads ALWAYS interrupt ALL OF OUR candidates because they have an agenda that needs to be advanced.

Romney DID NOT Support what you and others CLAIM he did as this is BACKED BY THE NRA IN MA AS WELL! What Romney signed was good legislation and they were happy with it or else they would have LOST all their rights.

George W Bush, Mitt Romney, and Chris Christie were all 100% wrong in supporting the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which, thankfully, representatives of ours were wise enough to kill in 2004.

I’d bet every penny I own that you haven’t a clue what the Federal AWB actually banned. It banned things like telescoping stocks, barrel shrouds, pistol grips, and bayonet clips. It did nothing whatsoever to deter criminal possession of firearms. It served only to make the possession of various firearms more difficult for law-abiding citizens. It was pushed forward by people like our illustrious and erudite vice president, Joe Biden. It was one of the most anti-gun pieces of legislation ever passed in this nation.

…but you are defending it because you are a supporter of Romney, and you refuse to take a look at what he actually says and does.

Comparing Romney to Bush, by the way, is not a way to prove he is conservative…or else you really don’t understand what conservatism is all about.

Romney DID NOT Support what you and others CLAIM he did as this is BACKED BY THE NRA IN MA AS WELL!

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 5:08 PM

I stated Romney’s own words from late 2007 declaring his support for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, one of the most anti-Second Amendment pieces of legislation ever passed. Stop deflecting and address his words.

GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…

MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?

GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…

The bill referred to at the end was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He stated repeatedly that he supported it. Defend his words, if you can. If you’re just going to deflect, don’t bother.

I’d bet every penny I own that you haven’t a clue what the Federal AWB actually banned. It banned things like telescoping stocks, barrel shrouds, pistol grips, and bayonet clips. It did nothing whatsoever to deter criminal possession of firearms. It served only to make the possession of various firearms more difficult for law-abiding citizens. It was pushed forward by people like our illustrious and erudite vice president, Joe Biden. It was one of the most anti-gun pieces of legislation ever passed in this nation.

…but you are defending it because you are a supporter of Romney, and you refuse to take a look at what he actually says and does.

Comparing Romney to Bush, by the way, is not a way to prove he is conservative…or else you really don’t understand what conservatism is all about.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Yeah, as a member of the freakin’ United States Military over here in Afghansitan I do not have a clue about assault weapons as you would say…okay!

unbelievable…

you still and others cannot deny Romney’s ACTUAL legislation I posted earlier so you avoid it and attack others.

Gotta go bed as its late over here…gotta wake up early so I can start reading my manual on my 240 Golf and “get a clue”

The bill referred to at the end was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He stated repeatedly that he supported it. Defend his words, if you can. If you’re just going to deflect, don’t bother.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Hey IDIOT!!! read the ACTUAL Bill that Romney said he signed! how about that? I posted the main portion and also used the NRA GOAL members OWN WORDS that said the MEDIA distorted (surprise to you likely!) the bill’s language!

Yeah, as a member of the freakin’ United States Military over here in Afghansitan I do not have a clue about assault weapons as you would say…okay!

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Thanks for your service. However, your service has nothing to do with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that applied to firearms possessed within the United States, and your attempt to hide behind your military service to avoid admitting that you know nothing about what you’re talking about is sad. You’ve deflected once again, and you demonstrate that not only do you not have a good grasp of Romney’s history, but you don’t care. You’re just blindly supporting a candidate because he’s not Obama. Your way of thinking will only push the GOP further from conservatives.

Note how not one of these swinging dicks or dickettes pundits ever shows off their intellectual prowess by competing in an actual election.
George, go talk to Dave about your pants. For the record I am still mad at Newt for many things but he or Romney (ugh) is still better than evil Barack Urkel.

OK guys, cool down. You are acting and talking exactly the way the DNC wants you. Stop the fighting and personal invective delivered at each other. We shouldn’t be our own enemy. The obama is the enemy, along with the pelosi and the reed and all their hangers on.

After the obama is defeated and the conservatives control congress, then you can all drive off into six different meaningless minority parties.

CHAPTER 150 OF THE ACTS OF 2004:
An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

(You can read the actual bill on the Massachusetts government website by clicking here: mass.gov – Laws – Chapter 150)

“This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members.

Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to lose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.

This was a victory for MA and GUN OWNERS!!!

I can continue to see why you are not well liked on this site Madison.

Refute what I have stated about Romney’s legislation on cutting taxes, pro-life, illegal immigration policies, etc…

I’ll give you till tomorrow because I am going to bed and as you say “I am hiding behind my military” status…No, only pointing out that I think someone that has spent the last 8 years over here in Iraq and AFG protecting your right to spew garbage would know a little something about weapons and laws.

He has done it time and time again. THIS is why we need to elect him as POTUS. To solve this ONE MAIN ISSUE of our country.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:05 PM

The only experience Mitt has with the federal economy, is asking for money to support RomneyCare.
His life of being a consultant, didn’t depend on putting people into jobs, but eliminating jobs. He merged and shut down plants, how is he going to debate Obama on that?
He was asked in a debate about the European economic crisis, and he answered that the crisis was hypothetical, he couldn’t even answer a simple question regarding economics.
The fact is, he has only won in a liberal state running as a liberal, he has never won anything that involves conservative politics.
As someone said:
You are supporting a dude, who got beat by a dude, who got beat by the dude that your dude wants to beat.

The only experience Mitt has with the federal economy, is asking for money to support RomneyCare.
His life of being a consultant, didn’t depend on putting people into jobs, but eliminating jobs. He merged and shut down plants, how is he going to debate Obama on that?

right2bright on December 2, 2011 at 5:32 PM

really? Go back and read my quote as I said nothing about the federal economy. Romney IS the only one with experience in HIRING people in the thousands between his private sector, Olympics, and as Governor. All of these were successful ventures and profitable. He was on the ground floor with many of these businesses as they started up and so your premise of him as a “consultant” as if he was always in some office is wrong. His job was to make said certain company profitable where its owners had driven it into the ground and you do not make Bain billions of dollars if you are not successful.

Romney IS the only qualified person FOR THIS SPECIFIC area of need right now in our country. He has proven it.

What is your candidates ACTUAL private sector experience again? What payroll did he have to meet and sign checks for?

For the last time…the Federal Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with the military. News flash: military personnel have access to all kinds of weapons and ordnance that citizens don’t. Your military service is completely irrelevant to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban…that Romney stated, on television, his support for many times. Not the Massachusetts AWB, the Federal AWB. Either admit you don’t know anything about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, defend Romney’s support for it, or admit he was wrong.

And once again…citing that you are “protecting my right” to free speech in order to score cheap points in an argument on the internet doesn’t say much for your character.

At this point, mightn’t it be better to run a conservative with virtually no pretense at electability for the sake of demonstrating genuine commitment to conservative principles?

I’ll suppose that you really meant this, Tina, as moronic as it is. The sentiment certainly echoes the maniacal purist of the H/A wingnuts who never get tired of telling us how they would prefer Obamandias, the worst POTUS since FDR if not worse, to Romney.

The answer is no, it might not be a better idea to reelect PBHO and to hell with you for even considering for the length of time it took you to type that sentence that it could be better in an any way.

g2825m, you’re doing a magnificent job of setting Mitt’s record straight here. I know that I didn’t think that Romney was a great candidate until I did my homework. Much of what I learned began with digging in to the materials that you and a few others (hat tip Sheryl) provided.

Whatever the facts, there are going to be plenty of folks who, based on ignorance and a desire to remain ignorant, are convinced that Mitt will sneak in to their houses at night and steal their guns away from them and commit a thousand other imagined future crimes. However, please know that some of us out here have benefited from the info that you have provided.

In part thanks to you, I don’t just think that I’ve settled for Mitt but am an enthusiastic supporter of his candidacy.

…I think someone that has spent the last 8 years over here in Iraq and AFG protecting your right to spew garbage would know a little something about weapons and laws.
g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM

I find this play for moral authority adolescent and cloying at best, sickening at worst. Once would be bad enough, but you repeatedly resort to it.

Will is great, and consistent. Unfortunately there is no solid conservative to really pick from this cycle. Pawlenty was good, but he’s not flashy enough..so we have to pick the best from this crew..and given the choice between Gingrich and Romney, it’s a pretty easy pick for me.

My great wonder is who exactly is advising these Republican candidates. Are their campaign advisers the typical we can get you those independent types??? I mean look at what has happened so far.

Rick “you don’t have a heart” Perry
Michelle ” you will go full retard if you inject Gardisell” Bachman
Hermain ” My campaign manager is a joke ” Cain
Newt ” I got a new idea every ten seconds, but no morals ” Gingrich
Mitt ” flip floppin and personality of a rock ” Romney
John ” My dad has more money than God” Huntsman
Rick ” I swear I didn’t mean to endorse Arlen ” Santorum
Ron ” I told you so, I predicted it all ” Paul

Geez, they just aren’t making it easy on us to just pick someone!
The loon in the Whitehouse can’t win on his record and is ten times worst than any of the above. It should be a cake walk for the nominee. I will say this, if Palin was in the running, she would have taken all the flak. The MSM couldn’t have helped themselves. She would have paved the way for someone else.

The candidates agreed to a debate schedule, Romney is respecting that. This one on one Gingrich challenge stuff is all about Gingrich and his ego and Romney is not going to play by Gingrich’s rules. Amateur candidates do that, Romney has played this game before and is not going to elevate Gingrich and help his “Im the only anti-Mitt” strategy.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Gingrich doesn’t have the deep-pockets’ campaign that Romney has. A debate is the least expensive way for Gingrich to get his message out, especially with more depth than the media allow with the sound-bite questions.

At the televised debates, all that Romney spouts are vacuous talking points. Then he tells people to read his 59-point plan. Why doesn’t Romney highlight some of its strongest points instead?

I can continue to see why you are not well liked on this site Madison.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM

This post is distasteful and disrespectful of other commenters. I happen to likd madison conservative though I don’t always agree withhim. How dare you make a comment like that when you don’t post 1/10 the amount of MC? I’m tired ot these inane and sensless attacks. By the way, 8 years in AFgan and Iraq does not make you an expert in law, unless you are one of those lawyers that practiced over there putting GIs in the stockade or telling them when they were violating human rights. If you were, I don’t think that makes you an expert on automatic weapons.

g2825m this is not perniciously directed at you, but only a small percentage of the military shoots small arms. The rest of them put GIs in the stockade, deliver parts, fix ordnance, fire big guns (Howitzers, etc.) deliver supplies, operate on the wounded, etc. Only a self-important pomposity writes like you.

From experience, this blog is full of veterans of service over a 50 year period. None of us behave like you. Your writing STYLE does not honor the candidate you are supporting and makes it harder for any candidate to succeed in the coming election.

Speaking of the 2nd Amendment, Newt Gingrich has a lousy record on guns, even breaking a promise he made before taking over as Speaker of the House: “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped like a lead sinker to a “D.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.1

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.2 Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”3 He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.4

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.5 (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”6

“On Social Security, Gingrich would keep the current system, into which people pay taxes while they work and then receive government payments when they retire. But he would offer another choice. It would allow people to put their money into personal accounts, to be invested in the private market.

Gingrich says those investments would be government-approved and safe. But what if they went bad and the money was lost? Gingrich, copying a plan that GOP lawmakers proposed in 2005, offers a guarantee: The government would step in and pay regular Social Security benefits.”

So who does George Will like? According to his WaPo column, after he thrashes and trashes both Romney and Gingrich as not being conservative and having other shortcomings, he says to take a look at either Perry (and he admits his wife’s role in that candidacy) or Huntsman. Will summarizes that column with two substantive paragraphs about why each has more solid conservative credentials.

I wanted to cut and paste the paragraphs but was unable to do so. Check it out for yourself.

1980 Reagan had attacked socialized medicine, endorsed Barry Goldwater, and delivered one of the most iconic speeches on conservatism in history 16 years earlier. He was one of the de facto leaders of the new conservative movement. The only time that would have to be ignored would have been 30 years prior, when he was a registered Democrat.

…but you need Mitt’s cutoff to be 2005…JUST SIX YEARS AGO…in order to claim he’s consistent. And you need to pretend the fact that the health care system he implemented in MA was the basis for ObamaCare is irrelevant. And you need to pretend that he’s pro-NRA when his above posted comments demonstrate that he’s anything but. You’re so pathetic it’s ridiculous.

Your comparison with Reagan is laughably off base, but then, you’ve been off base for a long time.

I find this play for moral authority adolescent and cloying at best, sickening at worst. Once would be bad enough, but you repeatedly resort to it.

rrpjr

I find it a little suspicious myself, and a little desperate. It’s almost like he really isn’t over in Afghanistan. Think about it…how many other guys do you know who have spent 8 years straight in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I think someone that has spent the last 8 years over here in Iraq and AFG protecting your right to spew garbage would know a little something about weapons and laws.
g2825m

The only time that would have to be ignored would have been 30 years prior, when he was a registered Democrat.
MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 8:16 PM

And even as a registered democrat in 1945 Hollywood, Reagan took on the communists in the CSU (Conference of Studio Unions). The story, as told in Ron Radosh’s “Red Star Over Hollywood”, is pretty remarkable.

Reading the tripe from many here on Hot Air, Reagan couldn’t get the nomination.

csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 3:20 PM

You’re a fine purveyor of tripe yourself. I remember Reagan, and he was popular among conservatives then for the same reason he’s popular today. He was conservative in principles, and articulate in explaining why he was conservative. You can’t fake what he was. Lord knows, Romney has been trying for years.

And even as a registered democrat in 1945 Hollywood, Reagan took on the communists in the CSU (Conference of Studio Unions). The story, as told in Ron Radosh’s “Red Star Over Hollywood”, is pretty remarkable.

rrpjr on December 2, 2011 at 10:22 PM

And he produced films for the government during WWII. The comparison to Romney makes my stomach turn.

i used to respect will’s perspectives a lot. I’m not trying to be disrespectful or clever, but these days, it seems that his insights come and go. I’m not trying to be clever, but I really worry that something like early onset Alzheimer’s is in the picture… he’s just as likely to be off the wall as deep these days…

It should be disturbing watching Romney supporters run down Reagan just to excuse Romney’s failings. Yes, Reagan had his faults too. But the electorate long since factored those in and voted him into office. And history has shown it to be a wise choice.

But even if you could make the case that Reagan shared every weakness of Romney — and you really can’t — you’re still facing the fact that Romney doesn’t have Reagan’s strengths, or convictions, or ability to win support by explaining and defending his positions rather than trying to find out what you wanted him to say.

George Will is not a source of “wisdom.” His foreign policy advice has historically been awful. George Will does not have a clue concerning military matters. He is not courageous on social issues. So why do we care what George Will says constitutes “wisdom”?

If, as Will says, the election of a Republican sellout in 2012 would mean the death of conservatism, wouldn’t it be better to let the opposition to Obama continue to grow by a second term, until the American people are so thoroughly tired of him that a conservative could easily trounce any Democratic candidate in 2016?

Have you no compassion for your fellow Americans?

Do you know how much pain a second term by Obama will cause?

Have you considered the lasting, perhaps fatal, pain of an Obama majority on the Supreme Court?

No to the Obama /Romney 2012 ticket. With a little dancing jester in a suit named Ron. Who yells nothing but “I told ya so, I told ya so! Obama cries about Republicans. Romney cries if hes asked to clarify . Hell with the whole guns issue. Romney will say whatever is flavor of the month to get elected. If you keep defending that snake. Then look in the mirror at your own reptilian skin.

Your comparison with Reagan is laughably off base, but then, you’ve been off base for a long time.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Hahahaha!! So now you want to equivocate!

Reagan signed anti-gun laws.
Reagan signed EMTALA. The reason we have Obamacare.
Reagan sign pro-abortion legislation.

You aren’t fooling anyone except yourself. You wouldn’t accept ANY change of position from 1980 Reagan irrespective of how long ago it was. You’re doing the same with Romney. Reagan was a great conservative because he was a fiscal conservative. Romney is certainly a fiscal conservative.

Hahahaha!!! Yeah right! I bet you remember watching FDR on TV talking about the depression. Reagan was a conservative in his talk, but governed as a moderate before becoming POTUS. And even then he sign quite a bit of progressive legislation that haunts us to this day.

Thanks to Reagan we have:

EMTALA. Which is why we have Obamacare.
Amnesty. Which is why our current candidates are struggling to find an answer to 11 million illegals and still get elected.

John McManus who runs John Birch Society has a presentation called the ”The Real Newt Gingrich” that presents Newt’s communist leanings and ultra left wing ideology. Only 38000 have seen the video while Fox News shamelessly promotes this man.

Will is full of sour grapes. A year or so before Gingrich and Repubs took over Congress in 1994, Will wrote a column saying that we could never have a budget surplus…low and behold after the Repubs took over Congress we did have a budget surplus.

Anyone still thinking of Will as some type of conservative or intelligent analyst are still being held in a time warp from about 30 years ago

Will, the self-annointed gate-keeper of the inept GOP (with a dozen other book writing very rich scolders of the right)has shot down Sarah Palin for the GOP elite and quite frankly is acting quite favorably for the goals of the Obama campaign to continue destroying America. Will of gentrified education, certain is the last one to speak of wisdom -something the entire cadre of communist enablers that inhabit the GOP upper-level club – lack.
The GOP is the problem. It blocks the passing lane for true reformers and patriot fighters to alter the suicidal course that the inner circle GOP is perfectly content with. The dirty truth be told -they can live with Onbama and stay filthy rich and celbratory, pretending to be true opposition.

George, pretends wisdom and confuses it with devious cunning that we see motivates he and his elite friends.

Where oh where are these same attacks on Obama -I wait every day and get little else from this insider crowd of puppet masters, attacks on their own and only an occassional powder puff nods toward the evil that is running this nation.

The left pretends to wish to help the poor (while getting rich)

The right pretends to support the constitution/God/guns and family, life itself (while getting rich and helping(enabling)its destruction.

If anyone thinks the GOP leadership really intends to reject the Obamacare madness they are delusional.

OK guys, cool down. You are acting and talking exactly the way the DNC wants you. Stop the fighting and personal invective delivered at each other. We shouldn’t be our own enemy. The obama is the enemy…

Old Country Boy on December 2, 2011 at 5:25 PM

You don’t get it. What you are blaming the anti-Will commentors for is precisely what Will (and the elite insider GOP) are doing continually -like a parade of naysayers-attacking and destroying their own. They assume that they alone, (not the citizens) are capable of choosing a leader.

They are the arrogant ones that have no faith in democratic elections. They are the modern version of the old smoke-filled back room where the candidate is chosen for us. It is done precisely as Will, COulter, Rove, Krauthammer, Ingraham, Noonan, Parker, Christie etc have been doing -shooting down all but whom they have chosen (in a brie and cheese-filled backroom)

I found this interview interesting in the wake of the Bret Baier interview:

RAZ: If Mitt Romney does become the Republican nominee, I mean it’s only fair to ask questions about his backgrounds, his faith. He’s not just a Mormon. I mean, he was a very important figure in the Mormon Church in New England, right?

BROOKS: Well, the church has an entirely lay clergy. And Mitt Romney served as a congregational leader known as a bishop. There are 30,000 Mormon congregations worldwide, 30,000 bishops. It is fair to ask questions about the culture of leadership Mitt Romney was raised in and that he assumed as a young man in Mormonism, both in terms of the networks of power he’s associated with and the way he was raised as a Mormon to think about what it means to be a leader.

RAZ: How do you think it will be reflected in his handling of the office?

BROOKS: Well, I think we see it already in his – I’m not the first to observe his stiffness in terms of interactions with the public. Given that Mormon congregations don’t openly dispute with their leaders, they are not used to, perhaps, candid feedback. So that lack of an ability to do a give-and-take with the press or the public is something we’ve already seen impact Mitt Romney’s candidacy. And I think it may have been something he picked up in Mormon leadership culture.

A Mitt Ginbrich debate isn’t on the schedule? TSK, tsk -neither was 9/11 or Katrina. Schedules are made to facilitate important things not the other way around, that important things can’t happen because of a predetermined schedule. A one on one debate would improve the ridiculous presently contrived insider debate game.

Who says that things must always be as they are? JFK takes his charm to the news room and poof we now have a whitehouse press corps complete with political favorite asking puff questions to Obama and destructive ones to a GOP president. -FDR preferred fireside chats, and controlled the agenda and was near worshipped.

The fact is the real schedule of the GOP was to eliminate Sarah before any of us could vote for her and screw up their lucrative ride. Now we have this ludicrous set up whereby the enemy (the left’s punditry) gets to take down our best (insuring the usual RINO) with gottcha questions and soon now we have the GOP allowing a cartoon of a man (The Donald) moderating/effecting the very process that he has announced he might yet be a part of. That’s fairness? I suppose if you can take down Sarah -you can do anything.

Keep your GOP made rules -the sooner we dump them and regain our control over who we-not they-want as a leader, the sooner we get to try to reverse this ruling class suicide we are engaging in.

The fact is the real schedule of the GOP was to eliminate Sarah before any of us could vote for her and screw up their lucrative ride.

Don L on December 3, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Hahaha! Most worshipers of St Palin the Victimized have learned their lesson and welcomed reality into their political views. You apparently have decided to make yourself one of the few remaining poster boys for Any effort by the GOP to keep St Palin the Victimized off the ticket was to deny Obama a walk away win in 2012. She will never win a national political office. EVER. She is a quitter and no one trusts a quitter who just couldn’t stand the heat after demanding to run the kitchen.

You apparently have decided to make yourself one of the few remaining poster boys for Any effort by the GOP to keep St Palin the Victimized off the ticket was to deny Obama a walk away win in 2012.

I think the disease you’ve contracted from sodomizing all of those dismembered and decapitated St Palin the Victimized voodoo dolls lying around your Grammy’s basement has finally worked its way up into your brain.

There was a letter to the editor in the paper yesterday. I don’t have the author’s permission to include his name, so here is the content:

“So Newt Gingrich considers himself more conservative than Romney. During Jimmy Carter’s presidency Gingrich teamed up with Carter to create the Department of Education, voted to lock up 68 million acres of mineral rich Alaska Land as wilderness, voted against cutting foreign aid by 1 percent, voted to fund the National Endowment of the Arts, voted to transfer 2.2 million acres of Idaho land to wilderness status and was the only Speaker of the House to ever be reprimanded for Ethics charges.
There’s more, but if that qualifies Gingrich as a conservative, then obama is one, too.”

First off I want to apologize to Madison from last night…I normally do not respond that way and anyone of you who have read my posts know this…he was just so damn frustrating for NOT reading what the actual Assault Weapons Bill that Romney signed said. THIS is what Romney was explaining on the program with Russert.

We all know that many times our Congressman/woman sign legislation that is not all peaches and cream and yet the opponent can pull a piece out of that legislation stating you voted it into law when in reality it was an addendum added to another bill. This is why I believe we should have stand alone bills.

As far Xblade and others questioning my service, believe what you want BUT I am over here in Afghanistan and have been deployed since 2005 with very little breaks in between deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The other part was he was questioning about the AWB Bill and I was letting Madison know that many of us in the military know what many gun laws state especially when it involves a product we use daily and even have to follow rules of engagement over here. :o)

I missed the opportunity to comment earlier on, but it’s an excellent column.

And I agree with this, particularly:

…was a little kid when Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House. The point is, I can study his past patterns — but I didn’t personally observe them. I’m still young enough and naive enough to believe that people’s patterns can and do change — and to think the image Gingrich portrays today is a sincere one. But I also tend to think Romney’s present conservative positions are the product of his own personal growth, rather than the product of his deep-seated and evident desire to be elected to the presidency.

I’ve posted this on other HA sites, but no one seems to respond or care.
There was a letter to the editor in the paper yesterday. I don’t have the author’s permission to include his name, so here is the content:

“So Newt Gingrich considers himself more conservative than Romney. During Jimmy Carter’s presidency Gingrich teamed up with Carter to create the Department of Education, voted to lock up 68 million acres of mineral rich Alaska Land as wilderness, voted against cutting foreign aid by 1 percent, voted to fund the National Endowment of the Arts, voted to transfer 2.2 million acres of Idaho land to wilderness status and was the only Speaker of the House to ever be reprimanded for Ethics charges.
There’s more, but if that qualifies Gingrich as a conservative, then obama is one, too.”
Emphasis mine.

Don’t any of you get it? Romney will be able to get the economy going.
Romney hasn’t done nearly the things that newt has done. Is it newt’s hair, his girth, his infidelity, his flips? What the heck does he have? I know he can spout off, but his overconfidence doesn’t make me want to vote for him.
Don’t get me wrong if he comes through the primaries, I will vote for a cool lemonade instead of obama. Meaning I will vote for newt. But come on – he is not a conservative.
He betrays people who support him, why would he sit on a couch with the witch of the west and not get a clue about how it looks?

Look sweet cakes obviously the economics of the Chilean model escape you, however, it’s a completely revolutionary model given that by the end of 6 yrs, no one was participating in the govt model to begin with since their own account was doing very well. THAT is the goal…to end SS as we know it. One step at a time. A transitional model CAN pass, your Ron Paul, “ending SS immediatly” thinking not only won`t pass, the person espousing it won`t win the nomination.

“Ask yourself this: Suppose Gingrich or Romney become president and gets re-elected – suppose you had eight years of this,” Will said. “What would the conservative movement be? How would it understand itself after eight years? I think what would have gone away, perhaps forever, is the sense of limited government, the 10th Amendment, Madisonian government of limited, delegated and enumerated powers – the sense conservatism is indeed tied to limitations on federal authority and the police power wielded by Congress – that would all be gone. It’s hard to know what would be left.”

I’m sure 10 others have already asked this, but I can’t help myself. I like George Will, but is he kidding? Does he seriously believe these things exist anywhere but in conservatives’ minds right now?

Obama proves you don’t have to have an iota of wisdom to be the president of the United States. The only qualification you have to have is the ability to get at least one more vote than the other guy! Period.

These pundits remind me of old women who spend their whole time at the grocery store squeezing and thumping mellons trying to find the ripest and best one while their dogs pass out in the heat of their parked cars out front.

Would recommend George Will for the dog track by now but he may have a few years left if he sticks to baseball.

If George is so cock-sure that the front-runners do not offer the requisite abilities to be President, why – other than a pay cut – isn’t he in the race so that he may lead us (the Great Unwashed) with his wisdom and beneficence?

These pundits remind me of old women who spend their whole time at the grocery store squeezing and thumping mellons trying to find the ripest and best one while their dogs pass out in the heat of their parked cars out front.
…

kens on December 4, 2011 at 12:09 PM

A whole bunch of +’s! This catches the essence of the whole problem in the MSM today.